analyze_quotation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what the tool detects (missing items, duplicates, out-of-range prices), which implies read-only analytical behavior, but it does not explain return format, error behavior, or assumptions about reference concepts.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the detection outcomes follow immediately, making it easy to scan and parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Inputs are fully covered by the schema and the tool's conceptual scope is clear. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description omits the result structure and any caveats about how reference concepts or ranges are determined, leaving a moderate completeness gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond framing the overall analysis, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Analyzes' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a material or labor quotation against reference concepts.' It further specifies concrete detection targets (missing items, duplicates, out-of-range prices), which distinguishes it unambiguously from the sibling tools about stages, checklists, and progress.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the tool's context clear: use it when a quotation needs analysis. Since none of the sibling tools perform quotation analysis, selection is unambiguous. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.